On Aug 27, 1:42 pm, Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use
> contrib.auth without requiring passwords which invalidates a ton of
> urls hooked into contrib.auth.urls - this means that all the tests
> fail.
In this case they'd fail irrespective of the templates, no?
> I would defi
On Aug 27, 1:42 pm, Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use
> contrib.auth without requiring passwords which invalidates a ton of
> urls hooked into contrib.auth.urls - this means that all the tests
> fail.
In this case they'd fail irrespective of the templates, no?
> I would defi
On Aug 27, 11:20 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I much prefer self-contained unittests. I read Russell's mail as
> preferring to trade that for installation/configuration testing. I don't
> particularly agree with that, but I could live with it if we decide it's
> the way we
contrib.auth view tests fail if required templates aren't found. This
seems a sensible default in line with Russell's post [1] but rev 8497
introduces a test only template directory [2] which
a) causes the tests to pass in the absence of an actual login template
(the provided template is not a d
I love the way newforms is shaping up - when finished it's going to be
very powerful.
In the regression tests ~line 2250 there is an example for dynamic
constuction of a Form
/* snip
It's possible to construct a Form dynamically by adding to the
self.fields
dictionary in __init__(). Don't forg
